预后营养指数作为成人危重病人群急性肾损伤的预测指标:系统综述和诊断测试准确性荟萃分析

IF 3.8 2区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Journal of Intensive Care Pub Date : 2024-04-26 DOI:10.1186/s40560-024-00729-z
Jia-Jin Chen, Tao-Han Lee, Pei-Chun Lai, Chih-Hsiang Chang, Che-Hsiung Wu, Yen-Ta Huang
{"title":"预后营养指数作为成人危重病人群急性肾损伤的预测指标:系统综述和诊断测试准确性荟萃分析","authors":"Jia-Jin Chen, Tao-Han Lee, Pei-Chun Lai, Chih-Hsiang Chang, Che-Hsiung Wu, Yen-Ta Huang","doi":"10.1186/s40560-024-00729-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The prognostic nutritional index (PNI), integrating nutrition and inflammation markers, has been increasingly recognized as a prognostic predictor in diverse patient cohorts. Recently, its effectiveness as a predictive marker for acute kidney injury (AKI) in various clinical settings has gained attention. This study aims to assess the predictive accuracy of the PNI for AKI in critically ill populations through systematic review and meta-analysis. A systematic review was conducted using the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure up to August 2023. The included trials reported the PNI assessment in adult population with critical illness and its predictive capacity for AKI. Data on study characteristics, subgroup covariates, and diagnostic performance of PNI, including sensitivity, specificity, and event rates, were extracted. A diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis was performed. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression were utilized to investigate the sources of heterogeneity. The GRADE framework evaluated the confidence in the meta-analysis’s evidence. The analysis encompassed 16 studies with 17 separate cohorts, totaling 21,239 patients. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of PNI for AKI prediction were 0.67 (95% CI 0.58–0.74) and 0.74 (95% CI 0.67–0.80), respectively. The pooled positive likelihood ratio was 2.49 (95% CI 1.99–3.11; low certainty), and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.46 (95% CI 0.37–0.56; low certainty). The pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 5.54 (95% CI 3.80–8.07), with an area under curve of summary receiver operating characteristics of 0.76. Subgroup analysis showed that PNI’s sensitivity was higher in medical populations than in surgical populations (0.72 vs. 0.55; p < 0.05) and in studies excluding patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) than in those including them (0.75 vs. 0.56; p < 0.01). Overall, diagnostic performance was superior in the non-chronic kidney disease group. Our study demonstrated that PNI has practical accuracy for predicting the development of AKI in critically ill populations, with superior diagnostic performance observed in medical and non-CKD populations. However, the diagnostic efficacy of the PNI has significant heterogeneity with different cutoff value, indicating the need for further research.","PeriodicalId":16123,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intensive Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prognostic nutritional index as a predictive marker for acute kidney injury in adult critical illness population: a systematic review and diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Jia-Jin Chen, Tao-Han Lee, Pei-Chun Lai, Chih-Hsiang Chang, Che-Hsiung Wu, Yen-Ta Huang\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40560-024-00729-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The prognostic nutritional index (PNI), integrating nutrition and inflammation markers, has been increasingly recognized as a prognostic predictor in diverse patient cohorts. Recently, its effectiveness as a predictive marker for acute kidney injury (AKI) in various clinical settings has gained attention. This study aims to assess the predictive accuracy of the PNI for AKI in critically ill populations through systematic review and meta-analysis. A systematic review was conducted using the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure up to August 2023. The included trials reported the PNI assessment in adult population with critical illness and its predictive capacity for AKI. Data on study characteristics, subgroup covariates, and diagnostic performance of PNI, including sensitivity, specificity, and event rates, were extracted. A diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis was performed. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression were utilized to investigate the sources of heterogeneity. The GRADE framework evaluated the confidence in the meta-analysis’s evidence. The analysis encompassed 16 studies with 17 separate cohorts, totaling 21,239 patients. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of PNI for AKI prediction were 0.67 (95% CI 0.58–0.74) and 0.74 (95% CI 0.67–0.80), respectively. The pooled positive likelihood ratio was 2.49 (95% CI 1.99–3.11; low certainty), and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.46 (95% CI 0.37–0.56; low certainty). The pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 5.54 (95% CI 3.80–8.07), with an area under curve of summary receiver operating characteristics of 0.76. Subgroup analysis showed that PNI’s sensitivity was higher in medical populations than in surgical populations (0.72 vs. 0.55; p < 0.05) and in studies excluding patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) than in those including them (0.75 vs. 0.56; p < 0.01). Overall, diagnostic performance was superior in the non-chronic kidney disease group. Our study demonstrated that PNI has practical accuracy for predicting the development of AKI in critically ill populations, with superior diagnostic performance observed in medical and non-CKD populations. However, the diagnostic efficacy of the PNI has significant heterogeneity with different cutoff value, indicating the need for further research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":16123,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Intensive Care\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Intensive Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40560-024-00729-z\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Intensive Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40560-024-00729-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

预后营养指数(PNI)综合了营养和炎症指标,已被越来越多的人认为是不同患者群体的预后预测指标。最近,该指数作为急性肾损伤(AKI)的预测指标在各种临床环境中的有效性受到了关注。本研究旨在通过系统综述和荟萃分析评估 PNI 对重症患者 AKI 的预测准确性。本研究利用截至 2023 年 8 月的 MEDLINE、EMBASE、PubMed 和中国知网等数据库进行了系统综述。纳入的试验报告了成人危重症患者的 PNI 评估及其对 AKI 的预测能力。研究提取了有关研究特征、亚组协变量和 PNI 诊断性能(包括敏感性、特异性和事件发生率)的数据。进行了诊断测试准确性荟萃分析。利用亚组分析和元回归研究异质性的来源。GRADE 框架评估了荟萃分析证据的可信度。该分析包括16项研究,17个独立队列,共计21239名患者。PNI 预测 AKI 的汇总灵敏度和特异度分别为 0.67(95% CI 0.58-0.74)和 0.74(95% CI 0.67-0.80)。汇总的阳性似然比为 2.49(95% CI 1.99-3.11;低确定性),阴性似然比为 0.46(95% CI 0.37-0.56;低确定性)。汇总诊断几率比为 5.54(95% CI 3.80-8.07),汇总接收者操作特征曲线下面积为 0.76。亚组分析显示,PNI 的灵敏度在内科人群中高于外科人群(0.72 vs. 0.55;P < 0.05),在不包括慢性肾病 (CKD) 患者的研究中高于包括慢性肾病患者的研究(0.75 vs. 0.56;P < 0.01)。总体而言,非慢性肾脏病组的诊断效果更好。我们的研究表明,PNI 在预测危重病人发生 AKI 方面具有实用的准确性,在内科和非慢性肾脏病人群中的诊断效果更佳。然而,随着截断值的不同,PNI 的诊断效果也存在显著的异质性,这表明还需要进一步的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Prognostic nutritional index as a predictive marker for acute kidney injury in adult critical illness population: a systematic review and diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis
The prognostic nutritional index (PNI), integrating nutrition and inflammation markers, has been increasingly recognized as a prognostic predictor in diverse patient cohorts. Recently, its effectiveness as a predictive marker for acute kidney injury (AKI) in various clinical settings has gained attention. This study aims to assess the predictive accuracy of the PNI for AKI in critically ill populations through systematic review and meta-analysis. A systematic review was conducted using the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure up to August 2023. The included trials reported the PNI assessment in adult population with critical illness and its predictive capacity for AKI. Data on study characteristics, subgroup covariates, and diagnostic performance of PNI, including sensitivity, specificity, and event rates, were extracted. A diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis was performed. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression were utilized to investigate the sources of heterogeneity. The GRADE framework evaluated the confidence in the meta-analysis’s evidence. The analysis encompassed 16 studies with 17 separate cohorts, totaling 21,239 patients. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of PNI for AKI prediction were 0.67 (95% CI 0.58–0.74) and 0.74 (95% CI 0.67–0.80), respectively. The pooled positive likelihood ratio was 2.49 (95% CI 1.99–3.11; low certainty), and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.46 (95% CI 0.37–0.56; low certainty). The pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 5.54 (95% CI 3.80–8.07), with an area under curve of summary receiver operating characteristics of 0.76. Subgroup analysis showed that PNI’s sensitivity was higher in medical populations than in surgical populations (0.72 vs. 0.55; p < 0.05) and in studies excluding patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) than in those including them (0.75 vs. 0.56; p < 0.01). Overall, diagnostic performance was superior in the non-chronic kidney disease group. Our study demonstrated that PNI has practical accuracy for predicting the development of AKI in critically ill populations, with superior diagnostic performance observed in medical and non-CKD populations. However, the diagnostic efficacy of the PNI has significant heterogeneity with different cutoff value, indicating the need for further research.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Intensive Care
Journal of Intensive Care Medicine-Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
CiteScore
11.90
自引率
1.40%
发文量
51
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: "Journal of Intensive Care" is an open access journal dedicated to the comprehensive coverage of intensive care medicine, providing a platform for the latest research and clinical insights in this critical field. The journal covers a wide range of topics, including intensive and critical care, trauma and surgical intensive care, pediatric intensive care, acute and emergency medicine, perioperative medicine, resuscitation, infection control, and organ dysfunction. Recognizing the importance of cultural diversity in healthcare practices, "Journal of Intensive Care" also encourages submissions that explore and discuss the cultural aspects of intensive care, aiming to promote a more inclusive and culturally sensitive approach to patient care. By fostering a global exchange of knowledge and expertise, the journal contributes to the continuous improvement of intensive care practices worldwide.
期刊最新文献
Clinical characteristics and short-term outcomes of patients with critical acute pulmonary embolism requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: from the COMMAND VTE Registry-2. Increased national critical care demands were associated with a higher mortality of intubated COVID-19 patients in Japan: a retrospective observational study. Current status of bacteriophage therapy for severe bacterial infections. Height status matters for risk of mortality in critically ill children. Hemorrhages and risk factors in patients undergoing thromboprophylaxis in a respiratory critical care unit: a secondary data analysis of a cohort study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1